You are here

ACA Sabotage Lawsuits Galore! Here's the latest on a whole slew of important cases

Sun, 03/03/2019 - 12:05pm

A big shout-out to Josh Dorner for providing a roundup of the current status of a five different lawsuits (six, really, although two of them are on the same topic in two different states) fighting back against GOP/Trump Administration sabotage of the Affordable Care Act, including:

There's also the various CSR reimbursement payment lawsuits filed by various insurance carriers. Those should have been a fairly minor issue only relating to about $2 billion in payments dating back to the 4th quarter of 2017...but as I explained in detail here, these suits may instead turn into an even more massive headache for the Trump Administration, and rightly so.

Doctors - American Medical Association, American College of Physicians, American Osteopathic Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, HIV Medicine Association and Medical Society for the District of Columbia

Last Friday, both the plaintiffs and the government filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Of note in our plaintiffs filing, there is new material (pp. 13-16) on how these junk plans and the way they are being marketed is highly deceptive and damaging to consumers.

Next: Responses to the cross-motions for summary judgment are due on Friday, March 15.

Texas Constitutional Challenge to the Affordable Care Act

Texas et al v. United States et al, 4:18-CV-167
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, merits panel yet to be named

Latest:

On February 14, the U.S. House of Representatives and the states of Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, and Nevada were granted intervenor status in defense of the ACA. The order granting the House’s motion to intervene included this line (emphasis mine), “In the absence of any other federal governmental party in the case presenting a complete defense to the Congressional enactment at issue, this court may benefit from the participation by the House.”

Motion by California et al to expedite briefing was denied.

Maine is no longer a party to the case.

Next: The opening briefs from California et al and the United States are due by Monday, March 25.

Of note:

Last month, the White House Council of Economic Advisers issued a report that directly contradicts the argument that DOJ is making in court, namely that without the individual mandate other elements of the law must fall. Here’s what the CEA report said:

“the three-legged-stool justification for the individual mandate tax penalty [linking the penalty to the guaranteed issue and community rating insurance reforms] is not consistent with the basic facts of how the ACA is structured. The penalty and other restrictions on consumer choice are not needed to support the guaranteed issue of community-rated health insurance to all consumers, including those with preexisting conditions”;

“the common argument that the individual mandate is valuable is misguided, due to the large ACA premium subsidies” which ensure the exchanges’ stability;